Talk page was getting difficult to follow and people were adding comments to sections which had been dead for three years. I've split the archives up into three sections: early commentary, a huge licensing flame war and later comments. Chris Cunningham 09:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Made TimeLine into a table
Put the timeline section into a table, looks neater in my opinion. feel free to change it back if you disagree.
Also I've put it on the Linux WikiProject page but I might as well put it here as well... We need a separate wikiproject for KDE and GNOME, anyone willing to start one or participate should reply to this or the aforementioned Linux project talk page.
Was KDE developed Specifically to replace CDE? The history on kde.org seems to sidestep the question, and I'm sure for good corporate relations they would not want to advertise that KDE is built on the failures of CDE. But the name KDE suggests that its a CDE replacement and I think a neutral Wikipedia article should cite sources confirming or denying the original intent here. Cuvtixo 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
please could somebody answer this b4 it is deleted?
Is this an operating system of do i need to download unix as well? thanks
- It's not an operating system. Here you find OS's shipping KDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momet (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some reorganization is needed, badly
KDE 4 is out, but we should reorganize the KDE article instead of updating. I believe we should have the main article provide general information, history, and blurbs about present and past releases and have separate articles that are more in depth for KDE 3 and KDE 4 (Keep the current KDE 4 article, make a KDE 3 article). Articles with now outdated KDE 3 tech should be given a last update and programs in KDE 4 should have an update with new screenshots and icons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I fully agree, otherwise we end up with one big article that attempts to cover ever version imaginable, but fails and is cluttered to the point that it becomes ugly to look at (which is now) ;)
- I know it's an ironic comparison, but go to the "Windows" page and see what they have, they briefly describe each release, with the latest covering the majority of it, then have links in the brief description (of each release), to it's own article. For example, there are redirects to "Windows 98", "Windows NT", "Windows Vista", etc.. In that article, you also do not see images of each release, they should be designated for their own individual release articles... these articles should cover only Major releases (KDE 4, 3, 2, 1, etc), minor releases of course being a sub-section of it...
- Any other opinions on this, so we can get started? ;-)
- Predator106 (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the part about "licensing-issues" forced and arbitary? It seems like someone went out of their way to mention that point? Also, it contains claims that are somewhat unsubstantiated, like the claim that commercial apps usually use GTK+ instead of Qt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, the term, "Usually" should be avoided in unbiased and fact-based documents or discussions: it either happens or it doesn't. Yes, commercial apps DO use GTK+, but commercial companies also use Qt (Adobe suite). Therefore, the idea that commercial companies *usually* use GTK+ or Qt are either void or otherwise very hard to prove. The article should be edited to either change the bias of this section or remove it completely, depending on its relevance. HTML guru (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
since when can kde be used on windows (i.e not using a linux that runs on windows) under the platform windows is listed.. can someone cite a refence to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
maybe this could be a section in the articale because kde on windows is not really mainstreem more "testing" according to the website.. or maybe where it says windows we could put that link as a cite refence..
I've been looking for the initial release dates for each major version (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 & 4.0) but neither this site (under history) not the sites dealing with more specific versions gives the initial release date, just the latest. EDIT: Found the release date for 1.0, but none of the rest.220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The brand "KDE"
The KDE project is currently in the process of dropping the meaning of the acronym "KDE", because it does not conform to how the community members self-reflect on their project. See http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=124574800219976&w=2 for more information.
Could someone with a neutral position adjust the article accordingly, please? (I'm afraid I cannot reflect an NPOV because of my KDE e.V. membership.) Greetings, Stefan Majewsky (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And the article on the official kde news website: http://dot.kde.org/2009/11/24/repositioning-kde-brand Bzhb (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've summarized the rebranding announcement as a new section after the "Identity" one. Though I'm a KDE sympathizer, I'm not oficially linked to it so I hope this is NPOV enough. Diego (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Simple English Wikipedia
I think the changes are well reflected in the article now (side question: Is it time to drop the template?), but I struggle with rephrasing some of the applications articles. Especialy things like "it is the default Foo for KDE 4.0", when there is no longer such a thing as a KDE version. Should they read something like "is the default Foo for KDE Software Compilation 4.0"? (side note, I read a lot of comments that it will revert to Kde 4.0 colloquialy, I anticipate somthing like KSC will become common). It's not clear to me weather there still is a K Desktop environment 4.0, or a legacy K Desktop Environment 3.0, or that all legacy stuff should also reflect the rebranding. Comments? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a bit too soon for a complete reworking of the brand within Wikipedia? Let's see how the new terms settle through the user base and the press, and then use whatever emerges. That's not meant to prevent some common sense changes (for example removing the deprecated "KDE Desktop Environment" acronym expansion - except when referring to the old versions), just not go changing the whole thing (with more reason given that even the oficial What is KDE page is not updated yet). Overall, I think the generic term 'KDE' is the one mostly used in articles, so I don't see a problem keeping that for a while. Diego (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
A New KDE User's Perspective
I have dabbled with linux for the past two years and started running kubuntu full time in December. As a result, I am familiar with the way the KDE userbase currently refers to various aspects of KDE yet I am not stuck in the habit of using old branding terminology. I believe therefore that my perspective shows how far the KDE rebranding has progressed in changing the way we think about KDE.
The term KDE among users is generally understood to refer to the software. To specically refer to the core set of software that is released by KDE periodically, the term KDE SC (Software Compilation) X.Y is used. Colloquially, KDE is never understood to refer to people - developers, the user community, etc; rather, people say KDE developers, the KDE team, KDE users, etc. Some people are still in the habit of saying KDE 4.x; however, the correct terminology is KDE SC 4.x and this should not cause confusion among users. As for releases before the rebranding, I would say KDE X.Y. Adam Arredondo (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Userbase vs. Wikipedia
What is the difference between Wikipedia pages regarding KDE and its projects, and the Wiki-like Userbase documentation project? While there have been suggestions that KHelpCenter uses the Userbase documentation, the Wiki pages appear to be better organized and maintain. I would appreciate thoughts and an explanation - thanks in advance. HTML guru (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and userbase.kde.org is a wiki created by the KDE community for the KDE users. It's a how-to manual, which an encyclopedia is not.
Collaborations with other organizations / Wikimedia
The section on Collaborations with other organizations / Wikimedia should be either updated and reworded into grammatically correct sentences or else removed. I'd try it myself but I have no idea what much of it is trying to say - "In particular, the content of Wikimedia projects over a Web service interface for KDE programs offer" , "The Kate editor received in this version is a wiki - syntax highlighting" , "However since 2009, the Wikimedia Deutschland alone used to be September". 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote those paragraphs for the German Wikipedia variant. Someone with limited English skills then translated them into English. Since I already know what I meant, I will try to fix those (I already did for Wikimedia). --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
What exactly this sentence means "... KDE conferences often take place in Germany arranged by its artists."?